The shadow Conservative leadership race has entertained so far. Kemi Badenoch has trotted out her best Michael Gove impression. Tom Tugendhat has corralled a few ex-MPs into tickling the bellies of Telegraph readers. And young Robert Jenrick has been accused of having a lean and hungry look.
But there is a general desire to move from shadowboxing to the real thing – from Coke Zero to full-fat. Rishi Sunak can only spend so long treading water, self-deprecating, and putting yes-I-really-am-staying-on-as-an-MP posts on Instagram. The contest can’t kick off formally until the relevant MPs and party officials have agreed rules and a timetable. As of yet, no dice.
Last week, the party board and the 1922 committee met to agree on the coming contest’s parameters. But despite one meeting stretching to five hours, no agreement could be reached between those wanting to go short or go long, and what the purpose of this year’s party conference should be: a coronation ceremony for the winner or a beauty pageant for contenders.
Whilst those involved were united in not wanting to rush, the split was over whether the final two to go forward to the members should already be whittled down by our Birmingham jamboree. Could they make speeches at a final hustings, with the winner announced and taking over from Sunak on the last day?
Or should the conference be an opportunity for finalists to court MPs and members, ahead to the final parliamentary rounds? The 2005 precedent stands. That year, the contest wasn’t completed, and David Cameron’s victory announced, until December, following conference speeches by candidates.
Different candidates have different incentives when pushing for different timetables. Those with pre-existing name recognition may hope a shorter contest allows them to capitalise. A longer contest provides more opportunities for frontrunners to implode, and for new candidates to show some leg to members. But unavoidable practicalities underlie any contest length.
The most vital is money. Today’s Sunday Times reports that CCHQ is down to its last £3 million. Running the party costs up to £1.5 million a month, even with a looming programme of redundancies (voluntary and otherwise). The last leadership contest cost over £1 million. But donors won’t cough up until a new leader is in place. If the contest goes on too long, the party could be skint.
MPs are also conscious of leaving the political space open to Labour. In 2010, George Osborne used Labour’s distraction by Miliband-on-Miliband psychodrama to bake in just how bad the public finances were that he had inherited, and the consequent need for austerity. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are already trying the same, despite the books now being more open.
Having a new leader in place for the Chancellor’s first Budget would enable them to go on the attack, or at least distance themself from the picture Reeves seeks to paint. Then again, one could argue Sunak was well-placed to school her on the realities, since he was in power only three weeks ago.
How long is he willing to stay on? Sunak has reportedly become more comfortable with staying on for a few months. A good reaction at the King’s Speech and from outgoing MPs at the Carlton Club has left this Leader of the Opposition gig looking easier than it is. Three more sessions of PMQs from the wrong side of the House shouldn’t be too arduous.
But he can’t be hang on endlessly. The days of former premiers remaining leaders in opposition are gone. After the loss of 251 MPs, he must go. Finding an ‘interim’ leader would be a considerable faff. The only ex-leader left on the Tory benches – one Iain Duncan Smith – isn’t keen on the job. Is James Cleverly still keen? A few more months of Sunak would be easiest. But how many?
If the funds can stretch to November or December, the pageant route seems wise. Onward has launched Breaking Blue, the first of many expected post-mortems. More exercises like this can substitute genuine data for raw opinion. A few ghosts still need to be excorcised, amid the sound and fury.
But if the money isn’t there, concluding with a final hustings and coronation in Birmingham would be an equally good bet. Sunak could shuffle off sooner. Even if most activists had voted by the time the two candidates spoke, it would, like the pageant option, drive both media, member, and donor interest in what would otherwise be a large and expensive wake.
The 1922 executive meets again on Wednesday. ConHome hopes it has better luck in coming to a decision. The runners and riders can be let out of their traps; the horse-trading, deal-making, and boot-licking can begin. I’m quite excited. The game commences, for the usual fee, plus expenses.